Hitler "only" killed 6 million Jews. Assuming he won, and expanded that killing to include a few other groups, he might kill 50 million people. That wouldn't put a dent in world population. Stalin managed around 30 million.Kabane wrote:aye but at the end of the war german lost, but say he didnt , and i want noone to take offence to this but he would of wiped out the jews then any other race/sect he took a dislike to and hency the world population would be no where near what it is today
Germany would never have captured that much of the world even in the best case. They wanted control of Europe (and N Africa probably), a supply of oil and a secure eastern border. Destroying communism was also a nice to have. Assuming that the US stays out and the UK decides to agree to peace early (or just doesn't declare war) that might have been possible.his armys would remain active to fight the rebels there for keeping ppl in work andbecuse german would be the world power and claiming 90% of it to tis self
That leaves the US and the UK as capitalist countries. Maybe the UK would start leaning towards facist policies as Germany would likely be a trading partner after the war. The US represents a massive component of the world economy.
One issue would be that the US is less likely to develop nuclear weapons if it doesn't enter the war. The world is lucky that the power to develop them was less likely to use them on a large scale (pre-emptively at least). If Hitler got them first, he could blackmail the world. However, in 1945 it was more cost effective per explosive yield to use lots and lots of conventional weapons than to use nukes as they were so expensive to make. The US was able to make 1 nuke every 3 months or so after the Japan blasts. Nukes at that time were psychological than cost effective.
The end result would also have been a cold war (capitalism vs fascism instead of communism), which capitalism would probably still have won. However, it would have been harder. There are also issues with how the pacific war turned out. The Japanese would have had serious issues if the US just was at war with them.
Life spans have increased, in those times, a 16 year old would not be considered a child.then there would be a Very low world dept. and if we had been brought up under the nazi rule then it wouldnt be wronge to kill "jews" as we all know right and wronge is just the current mass thinking at the time, Eg back in the 18/19 C it was fine to marry and have babysby someone who was say 12. but the current thinking is that its discusting and pedophillic.
Ok, we agree that it wouldn't be good for Africians then ? I am not sure that the is preferable to the current situation.no they wouldnt they would just wipe them out and use the land.
Kill the 100 ofc. What I wouldn't do was kill those 100 in exchange for expanding the territory of the country. Dictators do that, though they exchange millions of lives for the expansion. Individual citizens may not think the expansion is worth the cost, but they aren't given a choice.ok so you are the leader of country youhave hardly any defencive stand's and a world power comes along and offers you 2 choices they are, i want you to kill 100 of your ppl anyone of you choice Or i will use my power and distory your country and all the 100 billon ppl living in that country. Now you can eather kill 100 your self or you and your pplwill die youcan not fight the world power What do you do? do you takethe need of the many or the need of the few that help to make up the many?
The point is that that isn't the choice. A dictator tends to say that the war is needed for the good of the country. However, they just want to attack and they don't care about the costs. Wars of expansion are never in the interests of anyone. Defensive wars are different. However, even then I am not sure I agree with things like the draft. Also, pre-emptive strikes can be defensive, but it is hard to know if the enemy is really going to attack your country or if the government just wants to attack them.
Master Of Spamming 
